Tag Archives: American Chemical Society

How has the Super Bowl’s economy-driving market impact grown thanks to scientific research?

Can a value be placed on innovation? What is the economic impact of science and technology research? What is the return on investment of research and development?

These questions were addressed at the January 30, 2014, American Chemical Society Science & the Congress briefing, Measuring Economic Growth: R&D Investments, held on Capitol Hill. Moderated by the National Academies’ Stephen Merrill, PhD, panelist Steve Landefeld, PhD, of the Bureau of Economic Analysis spoke on how R&D numbers are now included in gross domestic product reports. Carol Corrado, PhD, of The Conference Board and Georgetown University explained how this captures “intangible” portions of the economy.

Researchers and scientists discover knowledge. Inventors and engineers apply understanding into tangible products like medicines, cars and computer software. Artists use technology from pens and paints to instruments and computers to produce works of entertainment. R&D thus seeds economic impact.

To illustrate R&D’s economic impact, IBM Chief Economist Martin Fleming, PhD, remarked that the Super Bowl attracts more viewers thanks to computer science: The 1st down line appears as “paint” on the field and not moving players. This TV “magic” results from scientific research of light and information. Camera sensors turn images into data, the Internet exchanges big data packages, then computer graphics paint on the TV screen in real time [with credit to Hollywood for development]. That the Super Bowl’s marketing power translates into significant consumer spending is hard to deny.

Andrew Lo, PhD, of MIT’s Sloan School of Management shows how R&D numbers are candy to financial markets to drive investment decisions that provide for economy-growing business. He showed that billions of dollars put into scientific and medical research in the War on Cancer has led to lifesaving drugs. The lives saved by these drugs contribute trillions of dollars to the economy. When considering multi-billion dollar federal spending, Lo states, “You can’t manage what you can’t measure.”

As our nation edges toward the fiscal cliff, the White House and House Republican leadership have been trading offers. The most recent Republican plan includes additional cuts to discretionary spending — another $300 billion. These newly proposed discretionary cuts are significantly less than the across-the-board approach of sequestration, but suggest that — absent a strong shift in the winds — more discretionary spending cuts will be part of any final, compromise plan. It is highly unlikely that any final plan will be hammered out until next year; the president indicated as much in remarks he made Tuesday. The best guess is that policy makers will coalesce around a small package that is designed to hold back the tidal wave of fiscal problems until the new Congress is in place, at which point sequestration will again become a possibility. Regardless of what scenario plays out — and no scenario is anywhere near certain — we must keep up the pressure.

The recent increase in media requests for stories of families, patients and researchers who will be directly impacted by the fiscal cliff is a positive development and an opportunity to increase awareness. Can you help identify individuals who can tell compelling stories now, before decisions are made, and proactively pitch stories to national and local media? You can do this on your own via social media and also work with the communications office of your society, association or institution. And if you or your organization have examples tracing federally funded research to private sector development, write an op-ed or letter to the editor and shine a spotlight on them! I’ll say it again — this is the time to speak out.

Here are a couple of great examples of recent media attention: The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has published an op-ed by Dr. Larry Shapiro, Research!America Board member and dean of the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. He writes about the need for a bipartisan solution to deficit-reduction, one that does not hurt our health and economy. In The Tennessean, Dr. Jeff Balser of the School of Medicine at Vanderbilt writes about the chilling effect sequestration would have on biomedical progress, while discouraging a generation from pursuing careers in research. Columbia University Medical Center convened a press conference with congressional Reps. Nadler, Rangel and Maloney to urge policy makers to reject cuts to the NIH budget. Consider organizing a local press event — as is frequently said, all politics is local, and the best arguments for saving research are local, too.

Ellie Dehoney, our VP for Policy & Programs, was recently quoted in a CNN article, “10 ways falling off the fiscal cliff could hurt your health,” describing the impact of sequestration on vital medical research programs. Forbes has run an op-ed highlighting how the fiscal cliff would harm our innovation economy. The research community’s message is resonating, and all of us need to make sure all policy makers are hearing it, over and over again. Send your elected representatives an email TODAY.

We can have influence even when it may seem unlikely, simply by speaking up and relentlessly making our case. Click here to access a toolkit of advocacy ideas. Several organizations are utilizing YouTube to make the case — see examples here: American Society of Hematology, American Chemical Society. And Stand With Science is a student advocacy organization looking for signatures for their letter opposing sequestration. On December 10, Research!America will participate in the NDD (non-defense discretionary) Coalition’s day of action. You can, too — find more info on how to participate here — if you tweet on the day of action, be sure to use the hashtag #NoMoreCuts!